Jari Arkko | 7 Nov 17:35 2008
Picon

FW: Last Call: draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules (IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)) to Informational RFC

FYI

The IESG wrote:
> The IESG has received a request from an individual submitter to consider
> the following document:
>
> - 'IANA Allocation Guidelines for the Address Resolution Protocol (ARP)'
>    <draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01.txt> as an Informational RFC
>
> The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> final comments on this action.  Please send substantive comments to the
> ietf <at> ietf.org mailing lists by 2008-12-05. Exceptionally, 
> comments may be sent to iesg <at> ietf.org instead. In either case, please 
> retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
>
> The file can be obtained via
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-arkko-arp-iana-rules-01.txt
>
>
> IESG discussion can be tracked via
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/public/pidtracker.cgi?command=view_id&dTag=17805&rfc_flag=0
>
> _______________________________________________
> IETF-Announce mailing list
> IETF-Announce <at> ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
>   
Jari Arkko | 11 Nov 16:13 2008
Picon

internet area open meeting agenda

We have a light agenda this time. If there are any requests for 
discussion items or presentations, please let the ADs know.

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/agenda/intarea.txt

Jari
Eric Klein | 12 Nov 16:17 2008
Picon

Fwd: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion re internet area open meeting agenda

Jari,
 
As the NAT66 discussion seems to be happening in several WGs at once, it seems to me (and Tim) that you should try to hold some sort of joint meeting in INT-AREA to get some sort of consensus yes or no for NAT in v6 or at least to do a gap analysis
 
Current Groups working on it are v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6.
 
Thanks,
Eric

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim Chown <tjc <at> ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 5:07 PM
Subject: Re: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion
To: Eric Klein <ericlklein.ipv6 <at> gmail.com>


Well the ASRG has 'invaded' the main ietf list, I think nat66 is best
placed there... as ULAs and other issues were.    And yes I suspect nat66
could usefully be discussed in Minneapolis in int-area, v6man and behave,
but int-area would be a nice 'cross wg' place to hold a general discussion,
so ask the chair(s) :)

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:59:22PM +0200, Eric Klein wrote:
>
>    thanks.  I  suspect  that this should have its own cross WG session in
>    Minneapolis.
>    On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 4:53 PM, Tim Chown <[1]tjc <at> ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>      You can always try [2]ietf <at> ietf.org ;)
>
>    On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:43:23PM +0200, Eric Klein wrote:
>    >
>    >    Cross posted to several lists
>    >
>    >    Can we keep the NAT66 discussion to less than WGs at a time?
>    >
>    >    I am trying to keep up with multiple threads on this and trying to
>    explain
>    >    that we do not have a valid requirement for NAT66 defined on any of the
>    >    mailing lists (v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6).
>    >
>    >    Le's get this to one group (maybe we need a new mailing list just for
>    NAT66
>    >    discussions, but this is getting out of hand.
>    >
>    >    Until now the simple response is that "the IETF does not support NAT in
>    the
>    >    v6 architecture." If this needs changing lets do it right with proper
>    gap
>    >    analysis and needs assement, and then seeing if there is a solution
>    (several
>    >    have been proposed that are not NAT) or if we need to create one, and
>    if
>    >    those fail then see about changing the architecture of IPv6.
>    >
>    >    Eric
>    >    On   Fri,   Oct   31,   2008   at   10:09   AM,   Rémi  Denis-Courmont
>
>    >    <[1][3]rdenis <at> simphalempin.com> wrote:
>    >
>    >    On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 15:31:27 +1300, Brian E Carpenter
>
>    >    <[2][4]brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com> wrote:
>    >    >> Well I'm not completely certain whether involving users here would
>    >    >> provide very good experience,
>    >    >
>    >    > I see your argument, but failing silently doesn't seem like a
>    >    > good idea.
>    >
>    >      It is only worse. What will actually happen then is, NAPT66.
>    >
>    >    >> and certainly operators would not be happy
>    >    >> to see vendors' devices complaining about limitations of their
>    network:)
>    >    >
>    >    > Too bad. This is actually a consumer protection issue;
>    >    > it seems completely appropriate to require that the
>    >    > reason for failure should be notified to the paying user.
>    >
>    >      Failing silently or loudly are no options. You cannot blame the
>    operator
>    >      if
>    >      you expect him to subsidized your device sale. You cannot fail if
>    your
>    >      competitor "just works" by using NAPT66.
>    >      Unfortunately, users are notoriously bad at appreciating good and
>    clean
>    >      engineering over functional and ugly hacks.
>    >
>    >    >> I would not like to see IPv6 NAPT, but I see that as a real risk if
>    >    >> network is using DHCPv6 for allocating hosts just /128 addresses but
>    at
>    >    >> the same time is not willing to delegate prefixes on demand.
>    >    >
>    >    > Agreed.
>    >
>    >      Pardon my ignorance. Is there a concrete case of this in some access
>    >      network standard?
>    >      (I heard some rumors thereabout)
>    >      --
>    >      Rémi Denis-Courmont
>    >
>    >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>    >    IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>
>      >    [3][5]ipv6 <at> ietf.org
>      >    Administrative Requests:
>      [4][6]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>      >    --------------------------------------------------------------------
>      >
>      > References
>      >
>      >    1. mailto:[7]rdenis <at> simphalempin.com
>      >    2. mailto:[8]brian.e.carpenter <at> gmail.com
>      >    3. mailto:[9]ipv6 <at> ietf.org
>      >    4. [10]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>
>    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>    > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>    > [11]ipv6 <at> ietf.org
>    > Administrative Requests: [12]https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>    > --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>      --
>      Tim
>
> References
>
>    1. mailto:tjc <at> ecs.soton.ac.uk
>    2. mailto:ietf <at> ietf.org
>    5. mailto:ipv6 <at> ietf.org
>    6. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>    9. mailto:ipv6 <at> ietf.org
>   10. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
>   11. mailto:ipv6 <at> ietf.org
>   12. https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6

--
Tim



_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Ed Jankiewicz | 13 Nov 21:26 2008

v4v6 coexistence reading list for IETF73 - revised

This may be of use to those interested in current work in IPv4-IPv6
coexistence tools. The work is going on in 3 working groups and some
drafts will be on on each agenda. There will also be some general 
discussion in the intarea meeting.

This has been revised reflecting comments from Dan Wing and Rene 
Despres.  Please comment if I have missed any drafts, or 
mis-characterized any of these as to WG, status or category. Or any 
other suggestions to make it more useful.

the table is attached in MS Word, I have not attempted to ascii-fy it 
after my last badly formatted e-mail...

See you on the edge of the prairie, where all the network engineers are 
above average.
	

Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  ed.jankiewicz <at> sri.com

Attachment (roadmap.doc): application/msword, 50 KiB
This may be of use to those interested in current work in IPv4-IPv6
coexistence tools. The work is going on in 3 working groups and some
drafts will be on on each agenda. There will also be some general 
discussion in the intarea meeting.

This has been revised reflecting comments from Dan Wing and Rene 
Despres.  Please comment if I have missed any drafts, or 
mis-characterized any of these as to WG, status or category. Or any 
other suggestions to make it more useful.

the table is attached in MS Word, I have not attempted to ascii-fy it 
after my last badly formatted e-mail...

See you on the edge of the prairie, where all the network engineers are 
above average.
	

Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or  ed.jankiewicz <at> sri.com

Jari Arkko | 14 Nov 09:55 2008
Picon

Re: internet area open meeting agenda

The agenda has been updated and is now consider more or less final. And 
no longer light :-)

http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/08nov/agenda/intarea.txt

Jari
Jari Arkko | 14 Nov 09:57 2008
Picon

Re: Fwd: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion re internet area open meeting agenda

Eric,

> As the NAT66 discussion seems to be happening in several WGs at once, 
> it seems to me (and Tim) that you should try to hold some sort of 
> joint meeting in INT-AREA to get some sort of consensus yes or no for 
> NAT in v6 or at least to do a gap analysis
>  
> Current Groups working on it are v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and 
> now v6.

We considered this, but at the end decided that its better to keep the 
biggest nat66 discussion in one place, and that is going to be BEHAVE. 
They have enough time for it, and many people will be attending. I hope 
people from this list will, too.

I am aware that there will be some other discussions as well. It might 
be that a full BOF next time might the best place to make decisions.

Jari
Eric Klein | 14 Nov 10:10 2008
Picon

Re: Fwd: Combine WGs for NAT66 discussion re internet area open meeting agenda

Hi Jari,
 
Thanks, holding it in BEHAVE is fine provided that everyone with a vested interest participates. Otherwise we will continue to have the same problem.
 
Eric

On Fri, Nov 14, 2008 at 10:57 AM, Jari Arkko <jari.arkko <at> piuha.net> wrote:
Eric,


As the NAT66 discussion seems to be happening in several WGs at once, it seems to me (and Tim) that you should try to hold some sort of joint meeting in INT-AREA to get some sort of consensus yes or no for NAT in v6 or at least to do a gap analysis
 Current Groups working on it are v6OPS, BEHAVE, Softwires, RRG, and now v6.

We considered this, but at the end decided that its better to keep the biggest nat66 discussion in one place, and that is going to be BEHAVE. They have enough time for it, and many people will be attending. I hope people from this list will, too.

I am aware that there will be some other discussions as well. It might be that a full BOF next time might the best place to make decisions.

Jari


_______________________________________________
Int-area mailing list
Int-area <at> ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
Mark Townsley | 16 Nov 16:38 2008
Picon

Internet AD Office Hours Sunday 1430 - 1630


The Internet ADs will be holding "Open Office Hours" from 1430-1630 
Sunday. Tentatively this will be in Boardroom II (assume this is so, 
unless you see an update email around lunch time today).

Jari is double-booked at the start of this meeting, but should be able 
to arrive by 1530. At 1630, Jari and I will head over to the "Meet and 
Greet" session for first-time IETFers and WG Chairs, then to the general 
reception at 1700, so you should be able to catch us there as well.

Safe travels all, and see you soon.

- Mark
Roque Gagliano | 21 Nov 22:02 2008
Picon

draft-shirasaki-isp-shared-addr and Class E networks


After the presentation on the intarea session yesterday I though about  
something that was said ( I do not remember the person that did the  
comment) in the last NANOG meeting during the panel: " What Would Jon  
have Done About the Addressing Challenges Currently Facing Us?".

The comment was about what Jon Postel did with the cable companies and  
the 24/8 network. He allocated the address block but forced the cable  
companies to test CIDR. In that sense he gave something and got  
something.

I wonder if we could take that example for the "shared address" case  
and re-activate the re-definition of the Class E space as "for private  
use" (draft-wilson-class-e-02) in order to be able to be use for this  
architectures if the ISP are willing to do so.

Roque
Jari Arkko | 22 Nov 06:03 2008
Picon

Malta interim meeting is canceled

FYI:

Russ Housley wrote:

> Thanks for all of the valuable input.  The IAOC has just taken a vote, 
> and the Malta Large Interim Meeting Experiment in January 2009 is not 
> going to take place.  The primarily reason for this decision is the 
> number of people that are able to commit to on-site participation.  
> The total number of people that indicated that they would attend is 
> less than 60.  That does not qualify as a large Interim Meeting.  With 
> this level of participation, we will not learn the things that we had 
> hoped from the experiment.

Gmane